Thursday, June 4, 2009

r France's 70-year history, 13 of the reported accidents involved loss of life..!

Incidents and accidents

 This section needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2009)

In Air France's 70-year history, 13 of the reported accidents involved loss of life.[47]

Selected accidents and major incidents:

[edit] 1940s

[edit] 1950s

  • On the nights of 12 and 14 June 1950, two Air France Douglas DC-4s (registration F-BBDE and F-BBDM, respectively) crashed into the sea off Bahrain while landing, with a combined loss of 86 lives. The first accident claimed the lives of 40 of the 53 occupants and the second 46 out of 52. Both aircraft had operated the Karachi, Pakistan, to Bahrain portion of Air France's Saigon, Vietnam - Paris sector. The accident investigators concluded that the pilot in command did not maintain his correct altitude until the runway lights became visible during the approach to Bahrain in the first accident, and that the pilot in command did not keep an accurate check of his altitude and rate of descent during the approach procedure in the second accident.[50]
  • On 3 February 1951, a Douglas DC-4 (registration F-BBDO) operating Air France's Douala, Cameroon, to Niamey, Niger, sector hit the 13,354 feet high Cameroon Mountain near Bouea, Cameroon, west of Douala, at a height of 8,500 feet (2,600 m). The aircraft was destroyed, killing all 29 occupants. The mountain was probably only partially visible from the flight deck due to the mist surrounding it. Although the pilot immediately turned to the left, the plane hit the steeply rising terrain with its left wing. The accident investigators concluded that the crew followed an inaccurate procedure and relied on imprecise navigation. The investigators furthermore determined that the crew did not check the draft. Moreover, they cited the crew's error of judgement and over-confidence when flying over the mountain mass as additional contributory factors.[51]
  • On 3 March 1952, a SNCASE Languedoc (registration F-BCUM) operating a passenger flight from Nice Le Var Airport to Paris Le Bourget Airport crashed shortly after takeoff with the loss of all 38 lives on board. Soon after takeoff from Le Var Airport, the aircraft began banking to the left. This increased progressively until the aircraft flipped over on its back and crashed. The accident investigators attributed the accident to the aircraft's blocked ailerons to the left, as a result of a mechanical fault related to the design.[52]
  • On 29 April 1952, a Douglas C-54A (registration F-BELI) operating a German internal service from Frankfurt Rhein-Main Airport to Berlin Tempelhof Airport came under attack from two Soviet MiG 15 fighters while passing through one of the Allied air corridors over East Germany. Although the attack had severely damaged the plane, necessitating the shutdown of engines three and four, the pilot landed safely at West Berlin's Tempelhof Airport. An inspection of the aircraft at Tempelhof revealed that it had been hit by 89 shots fired from the Soviet MiGs during the air attack. There were no fatalities among the 17 occupants (six crew, eleven passengers). The Soviet military authorities defended this attack on a civilian aircraft by claiming the Air France plane was outside the air corridor at the time of attack.[53]
  • On 1 September 1953, a Lockheed L-749A Constellation (registration F-BAZZ) operating the Paris-Nice portion of a passenger flight to Hong Kong crashed into Mount Cemet, France, with the loss of all 42 lives on board. The accident occurred while the flight deck crew was preparing to land at Nice's Côte d'Azur airport, the aircraft's first scheduled stop. The accident investigation established "controlled flight into terrain (CFIT)" as the cause.[54]
  • On 8 April 1957, a Douglas C-47B (registration F-BEIK) operating an Algerian passenger flight from Biskra lost height after takeoff and crashed a mile beyond the airport's runway with the loss of all 34 lives on board.[55]

[edit] 1960s

  • On 12 September 1961, a Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravelle III (registration F-BJTB) operating the Paris Orly-Rabat-Casablanca sector as flight AF2005 crashed near Rabat's Sale Airport with the loss of all 77 lives on board. At the time of the accident meteorological conditions in the local area were thick, low fog. The poor weather conditions reduced horizontal visibility and ceiling. The pilot informed ATC that he wanted to attempt a break-through over the NDB. The aircraft was destroyed by fire when it impacted the ground, killing everyone on board. The accident investigators cited the commander's error in reading his instruments as the most likely cause.[59]
  • On 3 June 1962, a chartered Boeing 707-328 (registration F-BHSM), Chateau de Sully, flying from Orly Airport, Paris, France, to Hartsfield-Jackson Airport, Atlanta, USA, crashed at Orly during takeoff. 130 out of 132 people on board were killed. Two flight attendants sitting in the rear section of the aircraft were saved. The investigation found a faulty servo motor, which had led to an improper (and non-adjustable) elevator trim. Brake marks measuring 1,500 feet (457 m) were found on the runway, indicating that the flight deck crew tried to abort takeoff. The aircraft rolled right while only seven feet (two m) from the ground, causing its right wing to hit the ground. It crashed 50 yards (45 m) from the runway and exploded.[60] Of the passengers 106 were Atlanta art patrons who had finished a tour of European capitals. Ann Uhry Abrams, the author of Explosion at Orly: The True Account of the Disaster that Transformed Atlanta, described the incident as "Atlanta’s version of Sept. 11 in that the impact on the city in 1962 was comparable to New York of Sept. 11." This was the deadliest crash in Air France history until the crash of Air France Flight 447. [61]
  • On 22 June 1962, Air France flight 117, operated with a Boeing 707-328 (registration F-BHST), crashed into a forest on a hill at an altitude of about 4,000 feet (1,200 m) during bad weather, while attempting to land at Point-à-Pitre, Guadeloupe, West Indies, killing all 113 on board. The aircraft was attempting a non-precision NDB approach. A malfunctioning VOR station and poor NDB reception due to thunderstorms were blamed for the accident. The airframe had acculumated only 985 hours of flying at the time of the accident. [62]
  • On 6 March 1968, a Boeing 707-328C (registration F-BLCJ) operating the Caracas-Point-à-Pitre sector of Air France flight 212 hit the southern slope of La Soufrière Mountain at an altitude of 3,937 feet, 27.5 km SSW of Le Raizet Airport with the loss of all 63 lives on board. When ATC had cleared the flight deck crew for a visual approach to Le Raizet's runway 11, the crew had reported the airfield in sight. Flight 212 started to descend from FL90 and passed Saint Claude at an altitude of about 4,400 feet (1,300 m). The accident investigators cited the probable cause as a visual approach procedure at night in which the descent was begun from an incorrectly identified point. Charlie Juliet had flown for 33 hours since coming off the Boeing production line, and was on her second revenue service (her maiden passenger flight was the previous day's outbound journey from Paris).[63]
  • On 11 September 1968, a Sud Aviation SE-210 Caravelle III (registration F-BOHB) operating the Ajaccio, Corsica - Nice sector as flight AF1611 crashed into the sea near Cap d'Antibes off Nice with the loss of all 95 lives on board. The accident occurred while the flight deck crew attempted an emergency landing at Côte d'Azur Airport, following the detection of a fire in the aircraft's rear cabin 21 minutes after takeoff from Ajaccio. The accident investigators believed that the fire had started in the right lavatory and galley area.[64]

[edit] 1970s

  • On 12 June 1975, a Boeing 747-128 (registration N28888) operating the sector between Bombay (now Mumbai), India, and Tel Aviv, Israel, of flight AF193 to Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport was destroyed by fire on the ground at Bombay's Santa Cruz Airport, following an aborted takeoff. The aircraft's tyre on its right-hand main undercarriage had failed while the flight deck crew was executing a 180 degree turn at the beginning of Santa Cruz Airport's runway 27. When the flight deck crew began its takeoff run, another tyre failed. At that point the plane's wheels and braking assembly came into contact with the runway, starting a fire. The crew aborted takeoff. The ensuing delay in shutting down the engines, as well as the improper deployment of the airport's fire service, caused the fire to spread, leading to the plane's total destruction. There were no fatalities among the 394 occupants (18 crew and 376 passengers).[66]
  • Operation Entebbe: On 27 June 1976, an Airbus A300 (registration F-BVGG) operating flight AF139 from Tel Aviv to Paris via Athens was hijacked shortly after departing Athens. After refuelling in Benghazi, Libya, the hijackers demanded it be flown to Entebbe, Uganda. One hostage was freed in Benghazi and in Uganda another 155 non-Israeli and/or non-Jewish hostages were released. The flight crew remained with the hostages after Captain Bacos insisted he was responsible for them. After several days of negotiating and diplomatic interventions, Israel launched a commando raid into Entebbe to free them. During the assault all six of the hijackers were killed as were three hostages. The leader of the assault was also killed. One hostage was unaccounted for. She had been taken to Mulago Hospital prior to the assault and later killed on Idi Amin's orders.[citation needed]

[edit] 1980s

  • On 18 January 1984, an explosion in the cargo hold of a Boeing 747 en route from Karachi, Pakistan, to Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, shortly after departing Karachi blew a hole in the right rear cargo hold. The resulting loss of cabin pressure necessitated an immediate descent to 5,000 feet (1,500 m). The aircraft returned to Karachi without any fatalities among the 261 occupants (15 crew and 246 passengers).[67]
  • On 26 June 1988, Air France flight 296, Airbus A320-111 (registration F-GFKC) crashed near the airfield of Mulhouse Habsheim, in the Franco-German border region of Alsace. The accident occurred during an airshow while the flight deck crew was performing a flypast at low height and speed. The aircraft overflew the airfield in good weather. Seconds later the aircraft struck treetops behind the runway and crashed into a forest, as a result of flying too low and too slow. Three passengers died and about 50 were injured.[68]

[edit] 1990s

  • On 24 December 1994, Air France flight 8969, an Airbus A300B2-1C (registration F-GBEC) was hijacked in Houari Boumedienne Airport in Algiers, Algeria, by four terrorists who belonged to the Armed Islamic Group. The terrorists apparently intended to crash the plane over the Eiffel Tower on Boxing Day. After a failed attempt to leave Marseille following a confrontational firefight between the terrorists and the GIGN French Special Forces, the result was the death of all four terrorists. (Snipers on the terminal front's roof shot dead two of the terrorists. The other two terrorists died as a result of gunshots in the cabin after approximately 20 minutes.) Three hostages including a Vietnamese diplomat were executed, 229 hostages survived, many of them wounded by shrapnel. The almost 15-year-old aircraft was written off.[citation needed]
  • On 5 September 1996, turbulence caused injuries to three passengers on a Boeing 747 in mid-air near Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. One died later from injuries received from an in-flight film projection screen. [69][70]
  • On 5 March 1999, an ex-UTA Boeing 747-2B3F (SCD) freighter (registration F-GPAN) carrying a revenue load of 66 tons of cargo on flight AF6745 from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Madras Meenambakkam, India, via Karachi, Pakistan and Bangalore HAL Airport, India, crash-landed, caught fire and burned out. Meenambakkam ATC had cleared the aircraft for an ILS approach to the airport's runway 07. The crew abandoned the approach due to technical difficulties. The aircraft circled to attempt a second approach. At the end of the second approach, the aircraft's nose struck the runway while touching down because its nose gear was either not down or not locked. The plane skidded and came to rest 7,000 feet (2,100 m) down the 13,050 ft. runway. After it had come to a standstill, the crew noticed smoke on the flight deck and began to extinguish the flames. Soon after, flames erupted in the aircraft's front section. One crew member managed to escape from the flight deck via a rope ladder. The remaining four crew members were rescued by the airport fire service from the rear, before the flames engulfed the entire aircraft. The fire service was unable to extinguish the fire and the aircraft burned out.[73][74]

[edit] 2000s

  • On 25 July 2000, Air France Flight 4590, a Concorde (registration F-BTSC) charter departing from De Gaulle airport in Paris bound for New York's JFK Airport crashed in to a hotel just after takeoff in Gonesse, France. All 109 people on board died, along with four people on the ground. According to the accident investigation report, the probable cause was the destruction of one of the aircraft's main wheel tires, as a result of passing at high speed over a part lost by a pre-departing DC-10 during the takeoff run. The piercing of one of the fuel tanks by a piece of the exploding tire ignited the leaking jet fuel and caused a loss of thrust in engine number one and two in quick succession.[75]

[edit] Hijackings

Air France has been the target of several hijackings. These hijackings occurred in the following sequence:

On 24 December 2003, three Air France flights bound for Los Angeles International Airport were cancelled because of fears that terrorists were targeting these flights.

[edit] References

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ "Head Office." Air France. Retrieved on 18 May 2009.
  2. ^ a b c d e "Directory: World Airlines". Flight International: pp. 56-57. 2007-03-27.
  3. ^ Salpukas, Agis (1992-12-27). "Air France's Big Challenge". The New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1992/12/27/business/air-france-s-big-challenge.html. Retrieved on 2009-05-31.
  4. ^ "Air France - Company Overview". Hoover's. 2009. http://www.hoovers.com/air-france/--ID__43290--/free-co-factsheet.xhtml. Retrieved on 2009-05-31.
  5. ^ Régional (Compagnie Aérienne Européenne), Company Profile
  6. ^ Air France IOSA Operators Profile
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o Air France (Airline, France)
  8. ^ a b c M.R. Golder, The Changing Nature of French Dirigisme - A Case Study of Air France. Thesis submitted at Trinity College, Oxford, 1997, p.28
  9. ^ World Airline Directory. Flight International. March 20, 1975. "466.
  10. ^ Airliners.net
  11. ^ Answers.com (Business and Finance) - Chargeurs International
  12. ^ FT.com/Business Life, The Monday Interview, 30 September 2007 - Pilot who found the right trajectory
  13. ^ The New York Times, 31 August 1994, Air France's New Adviser
  14. ^ Business Wire, 16 January 1996 - Statement from Air France Group Chairman regarding Stephen M. Wolf
  15. ^ AIR FRANCE - KLM Company Profile Yahoo! Finance
  16. ^ a b Financial Times, 17 October 2007 - Air France and Delta target London
  17. ^ Airwise, 17 October 2007 - Air France And Delta Set Transatlantic Venture
  18. ^ Engle, Jane. "Air France will refund or reroute LAX-Heathrow fliers". The Los Angeles Times. http://travel.latimes.com/daily-deal-blog/index.php/air-france-will-refu-2984/. Retrieved on 2009-05-09.
  19. ^ "Air France's new livery retains much of current scheme". Flight International. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/02/11/322387/picture-air-frances-new-livery-retains-much-of-current-scheme.html. Retrieved on 2009-02-11.
  20. ^ Pegasus a la Francaise
  21. ^ Air France's Hippocampe and BOAC's Speedbird: the semiotic status of logos
  22. ^ Air France Fleet Information
  23. ^ A modern and rationalized fleet
  24. ^ Air France Fleet Age
  25. ^ Air France To Retire Boeing 747 Fleet (Flight Global: 24 May 2007)
  26. ^ ASIATravelTips.com, 18 June 2001 - Air France confirms major A380 order
  27. ^ Airliner World (March 2005)
  28. ^ Air International (July 2005)
  29. ^ DVB to acquire six Air France Boeing 747-400s Flight Global, 5 February 2008
  30. ^ [1] Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 20 February 2009
  31. ^ Airliners.net F-GFKJ retrojet
  32. ^ The Betrayal Of Concorde By Donald L. Pevsner
  33. ^ Flight International 26 March 1970
  34. ^ Air France - On Board
  35. ^ Air France reçoit son 50e Boeing 777 et lance une Tempo premium
  36. ^ "Baggage fees for major airlines". budgettravel.about.com. http://budgettravel.about.com/od/airfarescruises/tp/majors_bagfees.htm. Retrieved on 2009-02-22.
  37. ^ Forbes - First-Class Chefs Take Flight
  38. ^ There is such thing as a good airline meal
  39. ^ Air France Airline Information
  40. ^ Echo Media - Air France Madame
  41. ^ Air France Flying Blue
  42. ^ a b Air France Flying Blue membership thresholds
  43. ^ "About Air France Code-share agreements". Air France. http://www.airfrance.us/US/en/local/toutsurairfrance/partenaires/partenaires_partage_code.htm. Retrieved on 2009-05-31.
  44. ^ Airliner World (January 2007)
  45. ^ Air France, Veolia plan high-speed rail venture (Reuters, 2008-09-08)
  46. ^ a b c Air France Reaching for the Stars
  47. ^ Record of Air France accidents/incidents at the ASN Aviation Safety Database
  48. ^ Gabler, Neal, Walt Disney, 2007, p.472
  49. ^ [2]
  50. ^ [3][4][5]
  51. ^ [6]
  52. ^ [7]
  53. ^ [8]
  54. ^ [9]
  55. ^ [10]
  56. ^ [11]
  57. ^ [12]
  58. ^ [13]
  59. ^ [14]
  60. ^ [15]
  61. ^ Morris, Mike. "Air France crash recalls ‘62 Orly tragedy." Atlanta Journal Constitution. Tuesday 2 June 2009. Retrieved on 2 June 2009.
  62. ^ [16][17]
  63. ^ [18]
  64. ^ [19]
  65. ^ [20]
  66. ^ [21]
  67. ^ [22]
  68. ^ ASN Aircraft accident description Airbus A320-111 F-GFKC - Mulhouse-Habsheim
  69. ^ [23]
  70. ^ [24]
  71. ^ [25]
  72. ^ [26]
  73. ^ [27]
  74. ^ Boeing's workhorse
  75. ^ ASN Aircraft accident description Aérospatiale / BAC Concorde 101 F-BTSC - Gonesse
  76. ^ "French plane 'missing' off Brazil". BBC News Online. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8076848.stm. Retrieved on 1 June 2009.
  77. ^ "Brazil confirms wreckage from Air France jet." BBC. Wednesday 3 June 2009.

[edit] Bibliography

[edit] External links

Sister project Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Air France
Companies portal
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

new Harkat news.

Judge describes raid on Harkat's home as 'most intrusive'

Justice Simon Noel, presiding over a hearing on the legality of the raid, said "fairness has to prevail" and mused that the agents went too far in seizing items such as family photos.

He said the search by the Canada Border Services Agency was "the most intrusive and I don't think it's anything anyone wants in their life."

He suggested officials may have been trying to psychologically derail Harkat before an important court date.

The former pizza delivery man and gas station attendant was released on bail in 2006 after being held for 3½ years without trial under a national security certificate.

Harkat, an Algerian refugee whom the Canadian spy agency CSIS accuses of having ties to terrorist organizations, has denied any involvement with terrorism.

As part of his stringent bail conditions, Harkat wears a GPS device, his phone is tapped, his home is under video surveillance and all visitors and mail to his home are screened.

In the raid, 16 officers and three police dogs spent six hours combing through the belongings of Harkat and his wife, Sophie.

They seized keys, a computer and anything that contained Arabic writing, including family photos.

CBSA supervisor Jasmine Richard, who planned the search, told the court the sole purpose was to determine whether Harkat was complying with his bail conditions.

But a series of emails between CBSA managers show the agency wanted to gather information for a court-ordered risk assessment.

The assessment would be used at a hearing on whether Harkat should be detained under a security certificate.

One email was from a CBSA counter-terrorism analyst who wrote, "the results of this search will be very important for Harkat's forthcoming risk assessment."

The analyst went on to advise officials to get as much material as possible so it could be fed back to national headquarters for forensic analysis.

Lawyers for Harkat have challenged the legality of the search and accused the agents of going on a fishing expedition.

Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

the Airbus A330 is a large-capacity, wide-body, twin-engine, medium-to-long-range commercial passenger airliner. data

the Airbus A330 is a large-capacity, wide-body, twin-engine, medium-to-long-range commercial passenger airliner. It was developed at the same time as the four-engined Airbus A340.

Contents

[hide]

[edit] Design and development

Airbus intended the A330 to compete directly in the ETOPS (Extended-range Twin-engine Operation Performance Standards) market, specifically with the Boeing 767. The A330 program was launched in 1987; airlines purchased it to replace the McDonnell Douglas DC-10. The A330 is 38% more fuel efficient than the DC-10.[3]

The A330's fuselage and wings are virtually identical to those of the smaller A340 variants, although it has different engines. The A330 basic fuselage design is inherited from the Airbus A300, and the nose/cockpit section and the fly-by-wire system and flightdeck are inherited from the A320. Both the A330 and A340 are assembled on the same final assembly line at Toulouse-Blagnac, France.

By the end of July 2008, a total of 1,006 A330s[4] had been ordered and 555 delivered. The 1,000 milestone was passed with orders from the 2008 Farnborough Air Show.

[edit] Variants

There are two main variants of the A330. The A330-300 was launched in 1987 with introduction into service in 1993. The A330-200 was launched in 1995, introduced in 1998 with passenger, freighter and tanker (Airbus A330 MRTT) variants available.

[edit] A330-200

Air Algérie Airbus A330-200 in Montréal, Canada
TAM Linhas Aéreas (TAM Linhas Aéreas) A330-200

The A330-200 was developed to compete with the Boeing 767-300ER. The A330-200 is similar to the A340-200 or a shortened version of the A330-300. With poor sales of the A340-200 (of which only 28 were built), Airbus decided to use the fuselage of the A340-200 with the wings and engines of the A330-300. This significantly improved the economics of the plane and made the model more popular than the four-engined variant.

Its vertical fin is taller than that of the A330-300 to restore its effectiveness due to the shorter moment arm of the shorter fuselage. It has additional fuel capacity and, like the A330-300, has a Maximum Take-Off Weight (MTOW) of 233 tonnes. Typical range with 253 passengers in a three-class configuration is 12,500 km (6,750 nautical miles).

Power is provided by two General Electric CF6-80E, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines. All engines are ETOPS-180 min rated. First customer deliveries, to ILFC/Canada 3000, were in April 1998.

The A330-200 is available as an ultra-long range corporate-jet by Airbus Executive and Private Aviation. The Boeing equivalent is currently the 767-300ER and in the future will be the 787-8.

[edit] A330-200HGW

In an announcement on 9 September 2008, Airbus released plans for a higher gross weight version of the A330-200 to more effectively compete against the Boeing 787. This new version will have a 238t MTOW and a range of 6,840 nmi (12,670 km). Airbus believes the first 20 787-8s will have a 219.5t MTOW and be limited to a 6,720 nmi (12,450 km) range, around 1,000 nmi (1,900 km) less than the figures published by Boeing.[5]

[edit] A330-200F

Due to flagging A300-600F and A310F sales, Airbus first began marketing a freighter derivative of the A330-200 around 2000-2001, although it was not launched at this time.[6] The A330-200F re-emerged at the 2006 Farnborough Airshow and received its industrial go-ahead in January 2007. The first flight is planned for late 2009.

Artist's concept of the A330-200F derivative
This file is a candidate for speedy deletion. It may be deleted after Monday, 8 June 2009.

The A330-200F is a mid-size, long-haul all-cargo aircraft capable of carrying 64 tonnes over 4,000 NM / 7,400 km, or 69 tonnes up to 3,200 NM / 5,930 km. It introduces a new versatile main-deck cargo loading system that will be able to accommodate both pallets and containers. Several different arrangements will be possible on the main deck, taking up to 23 Side-by-Side (SBS) pallets, aimed at the high volume, high value commodities or Single Row (SR) loading of 16 pallets (96”x 96”x125” SR pallets) and/or nine AMA containers aimed at the general cargo higher density markets.

To overcome the standard A330's nose-down body angle on the ground, the A330F will make use of a revised nose landing gear layout. The same leg will be used, however it will be attached lower in the fuselage, requiring a distinctive blister fairing on the nose to accommodate the retracted nose-gear.

Power is provided by two Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines.

As of 1 Jan 09, Airbus had 65 firm orders from nine customers: Aircastle 7, BOC Aviation 5, Etihad Airways 3, Flyington Freighters 12, Guggenheim Aviation Partners 2, Intrepid Aviation Group 20, MatlinPatterson 6, MNG Airlines 2 and OH, Avion LLC 8. Additionally ACT Airlines has signed an MOU for 2. [7] The first delivery will be to Flyington Freighters in Spring 2010. [1]

Other wide-body freighters include the B767-300F, DC-10F, MD-11F,B777F.

[edit] A330-300

US Airways A330-300 taking off from London.
Delta Air Lines Recently painted Delta A330-300 landing at Amsterdam.

The A330-300, which entered service in 1993, was developed as replacement for the A300. It is based on a stretched A300-600 fuselage but with new wings, stabilisers and fly-by-wire systems.

The A330-300 carries 295 passengers in a three-class cabin layout (335 in 2 class and 440 in single class layout) over a range of 10,500 km (5,650 nautical miles). It has a large cargo capacity, comparable to early Boeing 747s.

It is powered by two General Electric CF6-80E, Pratt & Whitney PW4000 or Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines, all of which are ETOPS-180 min rated. French domestic airline Air Inter was the launch customer for the aircraft.

The direct Boeing equivalents are the Boeing 777-200 and the Boeing 767-400ER.

[edit] Tanker derivatives

Airbus A330 MRTT
The Multi-Role Transport and Tanker version (MRTT) of the A330-200 provides aerial refueling and strategic transport. To date it has been ordered by Australia, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and the UK.
Northrop Grumman KC-45
On 29 February 2008 the United States Air Force announced that an American assembled variant of the A330 MRTT, now designated KC-45A by the USAF, had been selected to replace the Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker.[8]. The Air Force's fleet of KC-135 tankers has been in service since 1957, the last aircraft having been delivered in 1965.[9] However, due to mistakes in the tanker selection process, outgoing Air Force head Michael Wynne told media that he expected the selection process to be repeated.[10]

[edit] Operators

Main article: List of Airbus A330 operators

[edit] A330 deliveries

By the end of April 2009 a total of 1,021 aircraft of the A330 have been ordered (557 A330-200, 65 A330-200F and 399 A330-300) and 606 delivered (341 A330-200 and 265 A330-300).[11]

2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993
22 72 68 62 56 47 31 42 35 43 44 23 14 10 30 9 1

[edit] Accidents and incidents

 This section documents a current event. Information may change rapidly as the event progresses.

As of June 2009, the Airbus A330 has been in 9 incidents,[12] including 4 confirmed hull-loss accidents.[13]

Notable accidents and incidents
  • On 30 June 1994, an A330 owned by Airbus on a test flight simulating an engine failure on takeoff crashed shortly after take-off from Toulouse, killing all seven on board. (See A330 test flight crash.)[14]
  • On 15 March 2000, a 6-year-old Malaysia Airlines A330-300 aircraft was severely damaged by corrosive liquids that were being transported in the cargo hold on a passenger flight from Beijing to Kuala Lumpur. The corrosive liquid oxalyl chloride was mistakenly declared as non-toxic solid hydroxyquinoline. 18 canisters of the substance were transported via Kuala Lumpur intended to transit to Chennai. Five airport workers fell ill as they were unloading baggage from the aircraft at Kuala Lumpur after some of the canisters had leaked and chemicals spilled into the aircraft's cargo hold, resulting in extensive corrosion damage to the fuselage, wing box structure and landing gear. The aircraft was subsequently declared written-off.[15] On 12 June 2007, a court in Beijing ordered China National Chemical Construction Corp (the owner of the cargo) to pay US$65 million to Malaysia Airlines for the loss.[16]
Planform view of a Cyprus Airways A330-200 taking off. The undercarriages have fully retracted.
  • On 24 July 2001, two Sri Lankan Airlines A330-243s were destroyed on ground by an LTTE attack at Colombo's Bandaranaike International Airport, Sri Lanka, along with an Airbus A320-200, an Airbus A340-300 and a squadron of military aircraft. Another two planes, an A320 and an A340 were also damaged but have since been repaired.[17]
  • On 24 August 2001, Air Transat, Flight 236, an A330-243, performed the world's longest recorded glide with a jet airliner after suffering fuel exhaustion over the Atlantic Ocean. The plane flew powerless for half an hour and covered 65 nautical miles (120 km) to an emergency landing in the Azores (Portugal). No one was hurt, but the aircraft suffered some structural damage and blown tires.
  • On 18 July 2003, B-HYA, a Dragonair A330-342 encountered severe turbulence associated with Tropical Depression Koni over the South China Sea, during the flight KA060 from Kota Kinabalu to Hong Kong. 12 crew members and 3 passengers were injured, of which 2 crew members sustained serious injuries, but there were no fatalities. The aircraft landed safely at Hong Kong International Airport.[18]
  • On 7 October 2008, VH-QPA, an A330-303 operating Qantas Flight 72, suffered a rapid loss of altitude in two sudden uncommanded pitch down manoeuvres causing serious injuries while 80 nautical miles (150 km) from Learmonth, Australia. After declaring an emergency and safely landing in Learmonth, 14 required transportation by air ambulance to Perth for treatment, while up to another 30 also required hospital treatment. Up to a further 30 had injuries not requiring hospital treatment.[19] Initial investigations identified a inertial reference system fault in the Number-1 Air Data Inertial Reference Unit as the likely origin of the event. On receiving false indication of a very high angle of attack, the flight control systems commanded a pitch down movement, reaching a maximum of 8.5 degrees pitch down.[20]
  • On 1 June 2009, Air France Flight 447, an Airbus A330-203 en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris with 216 passengers onboard was reported lost over the Atlantic Ocean.[21] The airliner was reported to have disappeared 300 km (186 miles) northeast of Natal, Brazil.[22] The fate of the aircraft and those on board is currently unknown, however it is feared that the plane crashed into the Atlantic Ocean.[23][24] I hope we find somthing!!!!!!

[edit] Specifications

LTU Airbus A330-200 touching down at Düsseldorf International Airport.
Aircraft dimensions A330-200 A330-300 A330-200F
Overall length 58.8 m (192 ft 11 in) 63.6 m (208 ft 10 in) 58.8 m (192 ft 11 in)
Height (to top of horizontal tail) 17.40 m (57 ft 1 in) 16.85 m (55 ft 3 in) 16.9 m (55 ft 5 in)
Fuselage diameter 5.64 m (18 ft 6 in)
Maximum cabin width 5.28 m (17 ft 4 in)
Cabin length 45.0 m (147 ft 8 in) 50.35 m (165 ft 2 in) 40.8 m (133 ft 10 in)
Wingspan (geometric) 60.3 m (197 ft 10 in)
Wing area (reference) 361.6 m² (3,892 sq ft)
Wing sweep (25% chord) 30 degrees
Wheelbase 22.2 m (72 ft 10 in) 25.6 m (84 ft) 22.2 m (72 ft 10 in)
Wheel track 10.69 m (35 ft 1 in)
Basic operating data
Engines two CF6-80E1 or PW4000 or RR Trent 700
Engine thrust range 303-320 kN
Typical passenger seating 253 (3-class)
293 (2-class)		 295 (3-class)
335 (2-class)		 -
Range (w/max. passengers) 6,749 NM
(12,500 km)		 5,669 NM
(10,500 km)		 4,000 NM
(7,400 km)
Cruising Speed Mach 0.82 (871 km/h, 541 mph, 470 knots at 35,000 ft (10.7 km) cruise altitude)
Maximum Cruise Speed Mach 0.86 (913 km/h, 568 mph, 493 knots at 35,000 ft (10.7 km) cruise altitude)
Takeoff run at MTOW 2,220 metres (7,300 ft) 2,500 metres (8,202 ft) -
Bulk hold volume (Standard/option) 19.7 / 13.76 m³ 475 m³
Design weights
Maximum ramp weight 230.9 (233.9) t
Maximum takeoff weight 230 (233) t
Maximum landing weight 180 (182) t 185 (187) t 182 (187) t
Maximum zero fuel weight 168 (170) t 173 (175) t 173 (178) t
Maximum fuel capacity 139,100 L 97,170 L 139,100 L
Typical operating weight empty 120 t 122 (124) t 109 t
Typical volumetric payload 36.4 t 45.9 t 69 t

[edit] Engines

Model Date Engines
A330-201 2003 GE CF6-80E1A2
A330-202 1998 GE CF6-80E1A4
A330-203 2002 GE CF6-80E1A3
A330-223 1999 PW4168A
A330-243 2000 RR Trent 772B-60
A330-301 1993 GE CF6-80E1A2
A330-302 2007 GE CF6-80E1A4
A330-303 2007 GE CF6-80E1A3
A330-321 1999 PW4164
A330-322 1999 PW4168
A330-323 1999 PW4168B
A330-341 2000 RR Trent 768-60
A330-342 2000 RR Trent 772-60
A330-343 2000 RR Trent 772B-60

[edit] See also

Related development

Comparable aircraft

Related lists

[edit] References

  1. ^ "Airbus orders & deliveries". Airbus S.A.S. http://www.airbus.com/odxml/orders_and_deliveries.xls.
  2. ^ "Airbus Aircraft Range of 2008 List Prices" (PDF). Airbus S.A.S. http://www.airbus.com/store/mm_repository/pdf/att00011726/media_object_file_ListPrices2008.pdf. retrieved 27 July 2008
  3. ^ To Save Fuel, Airlines Find No Speck Too Small, New York Times, 11 June 2008
  4. ^ 1,000 up for A330 Flight Global.com, 15/08/08
  5. ^ "Airbus to offer heavier A330 against delayed 787." Flight Global. 9 September 2008.
  6. ^ "Airbus aims to fill freighter void with A330 derivative." Flight International. 14 March 2006.
  7. ^ "ACT Airlines commits for two A330 freighters." Airbus. 17 August 2006.
  8. ^ "Air Force Awards Tanker Contract to Northrop Grumman." The Pentagon. 29 February 2008.
  9. ^ ""KC-135 Stratotanker", Air Force Link, March 2008.
  10. ^ Reuters: Air Force to seek new tanker bids: outgoing boss
  11. ^ "Airbus - Orders and Deliveries". Airbus S.A.S.. 31 March 2009. http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/.
  12. ^ Airbus A330 incidents. Aviation-Safety.net, 1 June 2009. Retrieved on 1 June 2009.
  13. ^ Airbus A330 hull-losses. Aviation-Safety.net, 1 June 2009. Retrieved on 1 June 2009.
  14. ^ http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=06301994&reg=F-WWKH&airline=Airbus+Industrie
  15. ^ http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2001/03/27/127874/chemical-damaged-a330-is-finally-written-off.html
  16. ^ http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/12/06/220107/chinese-firm-ordered-to-pay-65m-over-chemical-damaged-mas.html
  17. ^ "ASN Aircraft accident description Airbus A.330-243 4R-ALF - Colombo-Bandaranayake Internation Airport". http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010724-1. Retrieved on 2006-08-03.
  18. ^ Hong Kong Civil Aviation Department B-HYA Accident Investigation report
  19. ^ Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2008-10-08). 2008/40 - Qantas Airbus Incident Media Conference. Press release. http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_40.aspx. Retrieved on 2008-10-08.
  20. ^ Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2008-10-14). 2008/43 - Qantas Airbus A330 accident Media Conference. Press release. http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_43.aspx. Retrieved on 2008-10-14.
  21. ^ "Air France: No success in contacting missing A330". Flight International, Air Transport Intelligence news. 1 June 2009. http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/06/01/327211/air-france-no-success-in-contacting-missing-a330.html. Retrieved on 1 June 2009.
  22. ^ "French plane lost over Atlantic". BBC News. 2009-06-01. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8076848.stm. Retrieved on 2009-06-01.
  23. ^ "Air France plane: 'No hope' of survivors". The Guardian. 2009-06-01. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/01/air-france-crash-a330-brazil. Retrieved on 2009-06-01.
  24. ^ "Air France plane lost: officials say 'no hope' of finding airliner". Telegraph. 2009-06-01. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5421818/Air-France-plane-lost-officials-say-no-hope-of-finding-airliner.html. Retrieved on 2009-06-01.

[edit] External links

Sister project Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Airbus A330
[
Posted by at
Labels: ,

Sunday, May 31, 2009

someone needs to get her on TV!

Posted by at
Labels: ,

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Harper's a Tims man, but Ignatieff inspires thats good!

The Globe and Mail-CTV News survey shows opportunities abound for both sides to take advantage of the other's weaknesses among regions, gender and income groups.


Posted by at
Labels: ,

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Prop. 8,California Supreme Court, case text.

NEWS RELEASE
Release Number: 29
Release Date: May 26, 2009
JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF
CALIFORNIA
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE
Supreme Court Rejects Challenges to
OF THE COURTS
Public Information Office
Prop. 8, But Finds Existing Marriages of
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
Same-Sex Couples Valid
www.courtinfo.ca.gov
415-865-7740
San Francisco — The California Supreme Court, by a 6-1 vote, today rejected a
Lynn Holton
constitutional challenge to Proposition 8, an initiative measure adopted by the
Public Information Officer
voters at the November 4, 2008 election that added a section to the California
Constitution providing “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or
recognized in California.” The court’s opinion resolves the petitions in Strauss
v. Horton, S168047, Tyler v. State of California, S168066, and City and County
of San Francisco v. Horton, S168078. The opinion is available online at
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/ .
The court further unanimously held that the scope of Proposition 8 is narrow,
limited solely to restricting the use of the term “marriage” to opposite-sex
couples, while not otherwise affecting the fundamental constitutional rights of
same-sex couples described in its earlier opinion in In re Marriage Cases
(2008) 43 Cal.4th 757.
The court also unanimously held that the new constitutional provision applies
only prospectively, and does not affect the continued validity of the estimated
18,000 marriages of same-sex couples that occurred prior to November 5, 2008,
when the new constitutional provision took effect. The challenges to
Proposition 8 before the court were filed by numerous same-sex couples and
public entities and were based solely on the provisions of the California
Constitution and did not raise any federal constitutional claim.
The majority opinion was authored by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, and
was joined by Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Marvin R. Baxter, Ming W. Chin, and
Carol A. Corrigan. In addition to signing the majority opinion, Justice Kennard
filed a separate concurring opinion.
Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar filed a concurring opinion, agreeing with the
result reached by the majority opinion but disagreeing in part with its analysis. Justice Carlos R.
Moreno filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, agreeing with the majority’s conclusion that
Proposition 8 applies only prospectively but concluding that Proposition 8 is invalid because it is
not a lawful amendment of the California Constitution.
MAJORITY OPINION
The 136-page majority opinion notes at the outset that the court’s role is not to determine whether
Proposition 8 “is wise or sound as a matter of policy or whether we, as individuals believe it should
be a part of the California Constitution,” but rather “is limited to interpreting and applying the
principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs
and values.”
The opinion further emphasizes that the principal legal issue in this case is entirely distinct from the
issue that was presented in the court’s decision last year in In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th
757. There, the court was called upon to determine “the validity (or invalidity) of a statutory
provision limiting marriage to a union between a man and a woman under state constitutional
provisions that do not expressly permit or prescribe such a limitation.” In the present case, by
contrast, the principal issue “concerns the scope of the right of the people, under the provisions of
the California Constitution, to change or alter the state Constitution itself through the initiative
process so as to incorporate such a limitation as an explicit section of the state Constitution.”
Amendment or Revision
Under the California Constitution the initiative process may be used to propose and adopt
constitutional amendments but may not be used to revise the state Constitution. Petitioners
primarily contend that Proposition 8 is a constitutional revision rather than a constitutional
amendment and therefore could not lawfully be adopted through the initiative process.
In addressing the question whether Proposition 8 constitutes a constitutional amendment or, instead,
a constitutional revision, the majority observes that “we by no means write on a clean slate.” The
opinion explains that the amendment/revision dichotomy dates back to the original 1849 California
Constitution, long before the adoption of the initiative process in 1911; the origin and history of the
distinction “indicates that the category of constitutional revision referred to the kind of wholesale or
fundamental alteration of the constitutional structure that appropriately could be undertaken only by
a constitutional convention, in contrast to the category of constitutional amendments which included
any and all of the more discrete changes to the Constitution that thereafter might be proposed.”
Furthermore, the opinion points out that over the past three decades numerous California Supreme
Court decisions have established that in determining whether a constitutional change constitutes a
revision rather than an amendment, a court must assess “(1) the meaning and scope of the
constitutional change at issue, and (2) the effect — both quantitative and qualitative — that the
2
constitutional change will have on the basic governmental plan or framework embodied in the
preexisting provisions of the California Constitution.”
Analyzing the scope of Proposition 8, the majority opinion explains that, contrary to petitioners’
assertions, the initiative measure does not “entirely repeal” or “abrogate” the aspect of a same-sex
couple’s state constitutional right of privacy and due process discussed in the majority opinion in
the Marriage Cases — namely, the constitutional right to “choose one’s life partner and enter with
that person into a committed, officially recognized, and protected family relationship that enjoys all
of the constitutionally based incidents of marriage” — nor does it “fundamentally alter” the
substance of state constitutional equal protection principles recognized in that opinion.
Instead, it carves out a limited exception to these constitutional rights by reserving the official
designation of the term “marriage” for the union of opposite-sex couples, but leaves undisturbed all
of the other aspects of a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to establish an officially recognized
and protected family relationship and to the equal protection of the laws.
The opinion emphasizes that it is not minimizing the significance that the official designation of
“marriage” holds for both the proponents and opponents of Proposition 8, and explains that an
accurate assessment of the actual effect of Proposition 8 on the constitutional rights of same-sex
couples is necessary to evaluate the constitutional challenges that are advanced in this case.
The majority opinion then analyzes the quantitative and qualitative effect of Proposition 8 on the
preexisting provisions of the state Constitution. Petitioners concede that the measure does not
amount to a quantitative revision, but maintain that it constitutes a qualitative revision. Addressing
this contention, the opinion explains that the distinction between an amendment and a revision does
not depend upon the relative importance of the measure in question, pointing out that “(1) the right
of women to vote in California, (2) the initiative, referendum, and recall powers, (3) the
reinstatement of the death penalty, (4) an explicit right of privacy, (5) a substantial modification of
the statewide real property tax system, and (6) legislative term limits — to list only a very few
examples — all became part of the California Constitution by constitutional amendment, not by
constitutional revision.”
Instead, the governing decisions establish that whether a change amounts to a qualitative revision
depends upon the nature and scope of the proposed alteration. Reiterating the standard that has
been applied in all of the numerous California cases decided in recent decades, the opinion states
that to constitute a qualitative revision “a constitutional measure must make a far reaching change in
the fundamental governmental structure or the foundational power of its branches as set forth in the
Constitution.”
Applying this standard to Proposition 8, the opinion concludes that a measure limiting access to the
designation of marriage to opposite-sex couples does not meet this test. Although petitioners claim
that the proposition transforms the judicial function, the opinion explains that the measure does not
3
interfere with the courts’ ability or traditional responsibility to faithfully enforce all of the
provisions of the California Constitution, which now include the new section added through the
voters’ approval of Proposition 8.
Petitioners also contend that Proposition 8 should be considered a constitutional revision because it
conflicts with a fundamental constitutional principle that protects a minority group from having its
constitutional rights diminished in any respect by majority vote. The majority opinion explains
there is no authority to support the claim that in California a majority of voters may not adopt
through the initiative process a measure that diminishes a state constitutional right, even if that right
has been interpreted and applied in a judicial decision. The opinion cites many amendments to the
California Constitution, adopted through the initiative process by majority vote in response to court
decisions, that have had just such an effect.
Although a number of other state constitutions contain provisions that preclude using the initiative
power to amend specified provisions of those constitutions, the majority opinion emphasizes that
the California Constitution contains no comparable limitation. Because there is no express
restriction on the initiative power, and consistent with past California holdings, the majority opinion
concludes that the California Constitution does not restrict the people’s right to use the initiative to
modify preexisting constitutional rights through the approval of Proposition 8.
Separation of Powers
The majority opinion next addresses petitioners’ claim that Proposition 8 violates the state
constitutional separation of powers doctrine. The majority opinion rejects this contention, pointing
out that, contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Proposition 8 does not “readjudicate” the issue that was
resolved by this court in the Marriage Cases. Proposition 8 does not purport to revisit the question
of the state of the law at the time of the Marriage Cases, but instead establishes a new substantive
constitutional rule that took effect upon the voters’ approval of the initiative measure.
Further, because the state Constitution explicitly recognizes the right of the people to amend the
Constitution through the initiative process, the people, in exercising that authority, have not usurped
a power allocated by the Constitution exclusively to the judiciary or another branch of government.
Inalienable Rights
The majority opinion next addresses and rejects the Attorney General’s claim that because article I,
section 1 of the California Constitution characterizes certain rights including the right of privacy as
“inalienable,” Proposition 8 is invalid because it abrogates such rights without a compelling interest.
The opinion explains that not only does Proposition 8 not “abrogate” the aspect of the right of
privacy discussed in the majority opinion in the Marriage Cases, but that the identification of a
4
right as “inalienable” has never been understood to mean that such right is exempt from any
limitation or to preclude the adoption of a constitutional amendment that restricts the scope of such
a right. The opinion emphasizes that there is no authority to support the Attorney General’s theory.
Validity of Existing Marriages of Same-Sex Couples
Finally, the majority opinion addresses the question of the effect of Proposition 8 on the marriages
of same-sex couples performed prior to the adoption of Proposition 8. Applying the well-
established legal principles that govern whether a constitutional provision should be interpreted to
apply prospectively or retroactively, the opinion concludes that Proposition 8 cannot be interpreted
to apply retroactively and that the marriages of same-sex couples performed before the effective
date of Proposition 8 remain valid and must continue to be recognized in California. This holding
of the majority opinion was concurred in by all of the justices.
JUSTICE KENNARD’S CONCURRING OPINION
In her separate concurring opinion, Justice Kennard explains that “[a]lthough the people through the
initiative power may not change the court’s interpretation of language in the state Constitution, they
may change the constitutional language itself, and thereby enlarge or reduce the personal rights that
the state Constitution as so amended will thereafter guarantee and protect.
“The difference between interpretation and alteration is the difference between the judicial and
legislative powers. Interpretation of existing statutory and constitutional provisions is a
fundamental power of the judicial branch, while alteration of existing statutory and constitutional
provisions — by addition, deletion, or modification — is a fundamental legislative power that the
people may exercise through the initiative process.
“Although this court’s decision in the Marriage Cases remains the final word on the meaning of the
state Constitution as it then read, the people have now used their initiative power to refashion the
wording of the California Constitution and by this means have altered its substance, and thus its
meaning, as of the effective date of the initiative measure.”
JUSTICE WERDEGAR’S CONCURRING OPINION
In her concurring opinion, Justice Werdegar states that although she agrees with the majority
opinion that Proposition 8 “is a valid amendment to the California Constitution rather than a
procedurally defective revision,” she rejects “much of the majority’s analysis.”
Disagreeing with the majority that prior California decisions define a constitutional revision as
limited to a constitutional change that is “focused on governmental structure and organization,” the
concurring opinion declares that “[t]he drafters of our Constitution never imagined, nor would they
have approved, a rule that gives the foundational principles of social organization in free societies,
5
such as equal protection, less protection from hasty, unconsidered change than principles of
governmental organization.”
Justice Werdegar explains that “just as an amendment of sufficient scope to a single principle as
important as judicial power can be a revision . . . so too, in my view, can be an amendment of
sufficient scope to a foundational principle of individual liberty in our free society, such as equal
protection.”
The critical question, as she would pose it, “is whether Proposition 8 accomplishes a change of
sufficient scope in a foundational principle of individual liberty as to amount to a constitutional
revision.”
Justice Werdegar concludes that although Proposition 8 impinges upon the right of same-sex
couples to have their family relationship accorded respect and dignity equal to that accorded the
family relationship of opposite-sex couples, the measure “has not brought about such a broad
change in the principle of equal protection as to amount to a constitutional revision.” She
emphasizes that “all three branches of state government continue to have the duty, within their
respective spheres of operation, today as before the passage of Proposition 8, to eliminate the
remaining important differences between marriage and domestic partnership, both in substance and
perception.”
JUSTICE MORENO’S CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION
In his concurring and dissenting opinion, Justice Moreno concludes that Proposition 8 is not a
lawful amendment to the California Constitution because it alters the equal protection clause to
deny same-sex couples equal treatment, explaining that “requiring discrimination against a minority
group on the basis of a suspect classification strikes at the core of the promise of equality that
underlies our California Constitution and thus ‘represents such a drastic and far-reaching change in
the nature and operation of our governmental structure that it must be considered a “revision” of the
state Constitution rather than a mere “amendment” thereof.’ ” Justice Moreno points out that the
equal protection clause is “inherently countermajoritarian” and observes that “there is no
‘underlying’ principle more basic to our Constitution than that the equal protection clause protects
the fundamental rights of minorities from the will of the majority.”
In Justice Moreno’s view, “[d]enying the designation of marriage to same-sex couples cannot fairly
be described as a ‘narrow’ or ‘limited’ exception to the requirement of equal protection,” but adds
that “even a narrow and limited exception to the promise of full equality strikes at the core of, and
thus fundamentally alters, the guarantee of equal treatment . . . . Promising equal treatment to some
is fundamentally different from promising equal treatment for all. Promising treatment that is
almost equal is fundamentally different from ensuring truly equal treatment. Granting a disfavored
minority only some of the rights enjoyed by the majority is fundamentally different from
recognizing, as a constitutional imperative, that they must be granted all of those rights.”
6
Justice Moreno declares that “Proposition 8 represents an unprecedented instance of a majority of
voters altering the meaning of the equal protection clause by modifying the California Constitution
to require deprivation of a fundamental right on the basis of a suspect classification.” He states that
“[t]he rule the majority crafts today not only allows same-sex couples to be stripped of the right to
marry that this court recognized in the Marriage Cases, it places at risk the state constitutional
rights of all disfavored minorities” and “weakens the status of our state Constitution as a bulwark of
fundamental rights for minorities protected from the will of the majority.”
-#-
7

Posted by at
Labels: , ,

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

BAD CBC this is NOT funny at all!

Canadian TV rapped for Obama assassination joke

Tue May 26, 3:03 PM

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Canada's public broadcaster was wrong to show a skit that joked about the possible assassination of U.S. President Barack Obama and suggested he could be a thief, an industry panel ruled on Monday.

The New Year's Eve "Bye Bye" comedy program -- shown by the French-language Radio Canada network -- generated more than 200 complaints. In one segment, two hosts discussed Obama's election in November 2008. Obama, who took office in January, is the first black U.S. president.

"We're not racists. It will be good to have a Negro in the White House. It will be practical. Black on white, it will be easier to shoot him," one of the show's hosts remarked.

The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council said it found "nothing redeeming in the allegedly comedic notion that an American president should be shot, still less that this would be easier to achieve because of the color of the president's skin. It was a disturbing, wounding, abusive racial comment."

The show also featured an interview with an actor pretending to be Obama. The host said, "The blacks, you all look alike," and then warned viewers to hide their purses.

The council said the comments and sketches breached regulations, adding they went "too far in terms of Canadian broadcast standards."

The producers of the show denied the skits had been racist, saying they had meant to mock the characters making the offensive remarks.

Complaints about Radio Canada are usually handled by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC). In this case the CRTC asked the council -- which deals with commercial channels and has more experience in handling such complaints -- for advice.

The CRTC, which is due to conduct its own probe into the show, does not have the power to fine Radio-Canada but can issue a public reprimand.

A spokeswoman for the commission said such reprimands could cause problems for networks when it came time for them to seek renewal of their broadcasting license. Radio-Canada is due to apply for a license renewal in 2011.

Polls regularly show that Canadians like Obama far more than they do their own leaders. Tens of thousands turned up to cheer him when he made a brief visit to Ottawa in February. A spokeswoman for the U.S. embassy said she did not know whether the White House had complained about the show.

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Peter Galloway and Frances Kerry)

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)